Editorial Prescribing adaptiveness in agencies of the state Short term, fragmented approaches to managing human- environment interactions are inadequate. Different approaches, based on resilience thinking and social learning have been proposed, variously described as adaptive, collaborative, poly- or multi-centric governance. Implementing these approaches has proved difficult, especially for agencies of the state (e.g. park authorities, agricultural or forestry agencies, catchment manage- ment bodies). We articulate an overlooked issue – why agencies struggle to operate thus – and propose prescription or at least active enablement of ‘adaptive’ governance. Consider this outburst by an agency head during discussions of cross-tenure and – agency collaboration: ‘‘All this integration stuff – put it in my statutory objects and I’ll make my people do it. Otherwise it’s every third Friday at 4 pm, if then. . .’’ The official’s frustration is the demand to act differently (adaptively, collaboratively, etc.), when such work is absent from the statutory mandate or regulatory or operational procedures. It is not what an auditor-general or parliamentary committee will probe when investigating performance, compliance and expendi- ture. The converse frustration is by researchers, landholders and NGOs when agencies do not collaborate across time and space, but remain within narrow mandates and territories. To explore this tension, we (i) summarize themes from recent literature, (ii) distil key challenges from an increasingly complex arena of theory and (barely) emerging practice, (iii) offer two cases illustrating the difficulties, and (iv) propose directions for research and policy reform. 1. Collaborative learning for flexible governance? Collaborative, flexible and polycentric approaches are com- monly theorized and advanced, summarized here under the conceptual umbrella of ‘adaptive governance’, and including adaptive management, co-management, ecosystem-based man- agement, integrated water governance, multi-centric governance, and community based management. The emphasis is on integra- tive governance to transcend spatial and temporal scales, jurisdictions and land tenure (Folke et al., 2005; Armitage et al., 2009; Cundill and Rodela, 2012). Extending adaptive management, these approaches utilize intentional experimentation and learning to guide purposeful but incremental changes in management (Lee, 1993). The shift from ‘management’ (by government) to ‘gover- nance’ emphasizes underpinning social structures, processes and mixed formal–informal institutions. Adaptive governance pro- motes participation and deliberation among diverse stakeholders as alternative to the deficiencies of expert-driven bureaucratic arrangements. Four key concepts shape adaptive governance: collaboration; social learning; flexibility; and polycentricism. Collaboration involves sharing rights and responsibilities among actors (Armitage et al., 2009). Social learning entails partnerships to support collective action (Keen et al., 2005). Flexibility, in an institutional context, is the capacity to learn and respond to changed circumstances or knowledge (Dovers and Hussey, 2013). Polycentricism denotes multiple, semi-autonomous nodes of decision-making and author- ity supporting both independent and intra-dependent decision- making between actors (Ostrom et al., 1961). Adaptive governance promises much: collaboration builds social capital and innovation (Folke et al., 2005), while multi- level learning and polycentricity promote effective governance and adaptation (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2012). These approaches promise improved decision-making under uncertainty, collective learning and collective action, long-term experimentation and inclusive decision-making and governance (Folke et al., 2005). Yet empirical evidence is thin (Holley et al., 2012). Cundill and Rodela (2012) find little research directly linking social learning with collective action. Backstrand et al. (2010) find weak evidence connecting participatory governance and environmental out- comes. Even supporters of adaptive governance acknowledge challenges: institutional inertia; potentially irreconcilable differ- ences; time- and resource-intensiveness; and no guarantee of desired outcomes (Ojha et al., 2013). Given these approaches have been advocated and theorized for decades, such sparse empirical support suggests substantial challenges. 2. The challenge: limits of agencies of the state To simplify, resource and environmental management should be undertaken over longer time frames, coordinated vertically across spatial and administrative scales, through robust but flexible collaborative arrangements between multiple state and non-state actors, using experimental/adaptive approaches allow- ing active learning. These requirements challenge agencies of the state. First, operating for the long term: state actors are bound by elections, annual budgets and forward estimates, limiting pro- grams to three–five years. Agencies are also constrained by the right of governments to change priorities over time. Second, flexibility, adapting and learning: public administration does not Global Environmental Change 24 (2014) 5–7 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Global Environmental Change jo ur n al h o mep ag e: www .elsevier .co m /loc ate/g lo envc h a 0959-3780/$ – see front matter ß 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.11.020